/2022 INSC 0790/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  1439 OF 2022
Joseph Johnson N. Maithkuri       …Appellant(s)
Versus
Subrahmanya & Another          …Respondent(s)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1440 OF 2022
Joseph Johnson N. Maithkuri …Appellant(s)
Versus
Rajesh & Another …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment(s)   and   order(s)   dated   10.06.2021   &   08.11.2021
passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad Bench
in   Criminal   Petition   Nos.   101007/2021   &   101621/2021
respectively, by which the High Court has allowed the said
criminal   petitions   preferred   by   the   accused   Subrahmanya
1

and   Rajesh   (respondent   No.   1   in   the   respective   appeals)
and   has   directed   to   release   the   accused   ­   Subrahmanya
and   Rajesh   on   bail   in   connection   with   Case   Crime   No.
157/2019 of Dharwad Rural Police Station for the offences
punishable   under   Sections   120(B),   302,   201   read   with
Section   34   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code   and   Section   27(3)   of
the Arms Act, 1959, the original complainant has preferred
the present appeals. 
2. Learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   –
complainant   has   vehemently   submitted   that   while
directing  the accused ­ respondent No. 1 in the respective
appeals   to   be   released   on   bail,   the   High   Court   has   not   at
all   considered   the   gravity   of   the   offences.   It   is   submitted
that the High Court has not at all considered the fact that
in   the   present   case   that   there   are   two   eye­witnesses   and
respondent No. 1 – accused has been identified. 
2.1 It   is   submitted   by   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of
the   appellant   that   in   case   of   co­accused,   namely,   Umesh
Nagappa   URF   Sangappa,   this   Court   vide   judgment   and
order   dated   06.01.2022   in   Criminal   Appeal   No.   39/2022
has   set   aside   the   similar   order   passed   by   the   High   Court
2

releasing   the   said   co­accused   on   bail   and   has
consequently cancelled the bail order. 
2.2 Learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   State   has
supported the appellant. 
3. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant   as   well   as   the   State.   Though   served,   none   has
appeared   on   behalf   of   the   accused   ­   respondent   No.   1   in
the   respective   appeals.   We   have   perused   the   impugned
judgment(s)   and   order(s)   passed   by   the   High   Court
releasing   the   accused   on   bail.     Even   liberty   is   reserved   to
the   State   to   move   for   cancellation   of   bail   in   the   event   of
this   Court   cancelling   the   bail   of   accused   No.   4   ­   Umesh
Nagappa URF Sangappa.
4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the case of
co­accused, namely, Umesh Nagappa URF Sangappa, who
was   also   released   on   bail   by   the   High   Court,   this   Court
vide   judgment   and   order  in   Criminal   Appeal  No.   39/2022
has set aside the order passed by the High Court and has
consequently   cancelled   the   bail   order   in   favour   of   the   co­
accused.   The   grounds   on   which   the   said   co­accused   was
3

released   on   bail   and   the   grounds   on   which   the   present
respondent   No.   1   –   Subrahmanya   is   released   on   bail   are
same.   In   paragraph   7,   the   High   Court   has   observed   as
under: ­
“7. As per the charge­sheet, CWs. 18 and 19 are
eye­witnesses   to   the   incident.   CW­19   who   is   running
tea shop near the spot has identified accused Nos. 1,2
and   4   in   Test   Identification   Parade   held   on
31.10.2019. The police took accused Nos. 1,2 and 4 on
29.09.2019   to   different   places   like   Dandeli,   Haliyal
and Dharwad and taken their photographs. Therefore,
the   photographs   of   accused   Nos.   1,2   and   4   were
available   with   the   police   and   there   are   every   chances
of   the   police   showing   them   to   the   witnesses   namely
CW­19. CW­18 is another eyewitness, who is the driver
of  the  vehicle  of  the  deceased,  who has  also  identified
accused   Nos.   1,2   and   4   in   the   Test   Identification
Parade   and   there   are   also   chances   of   the   police
showing   the   photographs   of   the   accused   to   CW­18
prior to Test Identification Parade. Even if the presence
of   the   petitioner/accused   No.5   is   taken   into
consideration,   there   is   no   overt   act   alleged   against
him. He was sitting on bike and the overt act alleged is
against  accused No.1, who fired from  the pistol to the
deceased and went away on the motorcycle along with
the   accused   Nos.   2   and   4.   Therefore,   there   is   no
specific   overt   act   alleged   against   the
petitioner/accused No.4”
That   thereafter   this   Court   has   set   aside   the   order
passed by the High Court by observing in paragraphs 6 to
8 as under: 
“6.   By   observing   the   above,   virtually   the   High
Court   has   acquitted   the   accused.   The   observations
made by the High Court in para 7 are on surmises and
conjectures   and   the   High   Court   has   observed   that
there   might   have   been   the   chances   of   the   witnesses
showing  them  the  accused  before the T.I. Parade. The
4

fact remains that the accused have been identified in a
T.I. Parade by CWs. 18 & 19, who are eyewitnesses to
the incident. 
7.  The  High  Court   has  not   at   all  considered   the
gravity   of   the   offence   while   releasing   the   respondent
No.1­accused   on   bail.   Therefore,   the   judgment   and
order   passed   by   the   High   Court   releasing   the
Respondent   No.1   on   bail   is   unsustainable   and
deserves to be quashed and set aside.  
8.   In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reasons
stated   above,   the   present   Appeal   succeeds.   The
impugned order passed by the High Court in releasing
the   accused   on   bail   in   connection   with   Crime   No.
157/2019   of   Dharwad   Rural   Police   Station   is   hereby
quashed   and   set   aside.   The   Respondent   No.1   now   to
surrender   before   the   competent   authority/appropriate
jail authority within a period of one week from today.
5. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reasons   stated   in
judgment   and   order   dated   06.01.2022  passed  in   Criminal
Appeal   No.   39/2022,   the   impugned   judgment(s)   and
order(s) passed by the High Court releasing the accused –
Subrahmanya and Rajesh, respondent No. 1 herein in the
respective appeals on bail also deserve to be quashed and
set aside.  At this stage, it is required to be noted that while
releasing the accused Rajesh on bail the High Court in the
impugned   judgment   and   order   has   observed   that   in   case
this   Court   cancels   the   bail   granted   in   favour   of   accused
no.   4   –   Umesh   Nagappa   URF   Sangappa   i t   would   be   open
for   the   State   to   move   an   appropriate   application   for
5

cancellation of the bail.   Therefore, once the bail in favour
of   Umesh   Nagappa   URF   Sangappa   has   been   cancelled   by
this Court, the bail in the present case also requires to be
cancelled.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present   Appeals   succeed.   The   impugned   judgments   and
orders   passed   by   the   High   Court   releasing   the   accused
Subrahmanya   and   Rajesh,   respondent   No.   1   in   the
respective   appeals   on   bail   in   connection   with   Case   Crime
No.   157/2019   of   Dharwad   Rural   Police   Station   for   the
offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 302, 201 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27(3)
of   the   Arms   Act,   1959   are   hereby   quashed   and   set   aside.
Accused   Subrahmanya   and   Rajesh   are   now   directed   to
surrender   before   the   competent   authority/appropriate   jail
authority   within   a   period   of   two   weeks   from   today.   If   the
accused Subrahmanya & Rajesh do not surrender within a
period   of   two   weeks   from   today,   the   concerned   police
authority   is   directed   to   arrest   the   accused   Subrahmanya
6

and   Rajesh   and   the   learned   Trial   Court   to   issue   non­
bailable warrant against them.  
7. However,   it   is   observed   that   the   learned   Trial   Court   to
decide and dispose of the trial in accordance with law and
on its own merits on the basis of the evidence led before it
and   without,   in   any   way,   influenced   by   any   of   the
observations   made   by   the   High   Court   in   the   impugned
judgment(s)   and  order(s)  which  otherwise are  set  aside  by
the present order. 
With this, the present Appeals are allowed.  
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
SEPTEMBER 09, 2022 [KRISHNA MURARI]
7